Bulk Hazardous Liquids

Control of Major Accident Hazards

COMAH Competent Authority Workstream

Secondary and Tertiary Containment of Bulk

Hazardous Liquids at COMAH Establishments(Operational Delivery Guide)

the Competent Authority


1 of 9 pagesSecondary/Tertiary Containment Delivery GuideVersion 1/April 2010

1. Purpose

1.1 To ensure that operator’s adequately discharge their duty under Regulation 4 to take all measures

necessary to prevent major accidents and limit their consequences to persons and the

environment with regard to the measures set out in the Containment Policy and the Process

Safety Leadership Group (PSLG) final report.

1.2 Buncefield follow up: Secondary and Tertiary Containment of Bulk Hazardous Liquids at COMAH

Establishments is a Competent Authority Strategic Management Group (CASMG) priority topic for

2010-2011 and 2011-12. The results from the intervention will be recorded on COIN and

reported to CASMG at the end of the work year. The results will be used to inform future

interventions.

2. Scope

2.1 This guidance applies to the secondary and tertiary containment systems on:

� all Buncefield ‘in-scope’ gasoline tanks covered by the Control of Major Accident Hazard

regulations 1999 (as amended 2005) (COMAH) (as defined on page 13 of the PSLG Final Report);

and

� tanks storing petroleum products (a) gasolines and napthas, b) kerosines (including jet fuels), c)

gas oils (including diesel fuels, home heating oils and gas oil blending streams) in bulk covered by

Section 2 of the Containment Policy at other COMAH sites.

3. Justification

3.1 The Buncefield Major Incident Investigation Board (BMIIB) was established following the Buncefield

incident in December 2005 and issued a series of reports prior to publishing its final report in

December 2008.

3.2 In February 2008 the Competent Authority (CA) published its Containment Policy. The policy

establishes good practice for primary, secondary and tertiary containment for tanks storing

petroleum products in bulk With regard to secondary and tertiary containment the Policy

responds to Recommendations 17 and 18 of the BMIIB’s report ‘Recommendations on the design

and operation of fuel storage sites’ – (published March 2007) and the CA’s ‘Report on the findings

of the Oil/Fuel Depot Safety and Environmental Reviews’ [March 2007] and evidence from other

incidents.

3.3 The Process Safety Leadership Group (PSLG) was formed in 2007, made up of CA, industry and

trade unions. The purpose of the PSLG was to take forward the BMIIB recommendations, to

promote process safety and, in particular, to ensure that major hazard industries demonstrated

leadership in these matters. The final report of the PSLG was published on 11th December 2009.

It provides clear guidance on the safety and environmental standards required of fuel storage sites

and Part 4 contains requirements for engineering against loss of secondary and tertiary

containment.



3.4 It is anticipated that the BMIIB may reform in the future to review progress in implementing its

recommendations. In addition, PSLG continues to monitor progress with the implementation of any

upgrades required. The CA is likely to be criticised if it fails to secure satisfactory compliance.

4. Main actions

4.1 The main purpose of this Delivery Guide is to ensure that the Containment Policy is implemented

in a consistent manner within the UK and to set out how compliance will be measured.

4.2 The guide is also intended to set out the time scales for:

� the assessment of existing arrangements on each site,

� the production of an action plan to address shortfalls in the standards in place, and

� the implementation of the action plans.

5. Core intervention issues

5.1 EA and SEPA officers need to assess the level of compliance with the Containment Policy of the

secondary and tertiary containment systems for tanks within the scope of this Delivery Guide.

Where necessary, an action plan should be agreed for:

5.1.1 In England and Wales: All tanks in scope of this Delivery Guide.(The action plans should, in the

main, already be in place through implementation of the Containment Policy, however the

additional requirements of the PSLG Final Report will need to be considered.)

5.1.2 In Scotland: All Buncefield in scope tanks and in scope tanks at sites prioritised for inspection

over the period April 2010 – March 2012 using the CA risk ranking.

5.1.3 For sites requiring an action plan, the plan should describe the extent of the improvement work

required and detail the timescales for the work. Action plans for Buncefield in scope tanks should

be agreed by 11 September 2010 and for other tanks within the scope of this Delivery Guide,

should generally be agreed within 6 months of the inspection identifying shortfalls in the standards

in place.

5.1.4 In Scotland action plans should be agreed provisionally with operators until primary containment

has been inspected by the HSE and a CA action plan agreed covering improvements required to

primary, secondary and tertiary containment. Wherever possible a joint inspection should be

undertaken to avoid unnecessary delay. However, if the site poses a high risk to the environment

there should be no delay in implementing the action plan.

5.1.5 The Containment Policy requires that all of the necessary improvements are completed within 10

to 20 years of its publication (i.e. from February 2008). EA policy is that sites posing the highest

risk will be expected to make improvements within 2 to 5 years of that date, as far as is

reasonably practicable. For SEPA there is no specific policy on timescales, but it is expected that

the timescales for implementation of any improvements required at each site will reflect the risk to

the environment they pose and be fully justified.



5.1.6 Specific reference should be made to Part 4 of the PSLG final report to obtain further guidance on

detailed implementation of the policy.

5.2 For sites with an action plan already in place progress against the action plan should be assessed

annually by November (to allow the results of the assessment to feed into the following years

intervention plans). Note that in England and Wales all in scope tanks at oil terminals and

refineries should by now have an agreed action plan in place.

5.3 EA and SEPA officers should use the containment scorecard to record the level of compliance

with the Containment Policy and the improvement work required at each site. Progress at sites

that already have an action plan in place should be reviewed against the containment scorecard

and the scorecard updated. An example scorecard is attached in Appendix 2.

5.4 Operator performance should be assessed using the methodology described in Appendix 1 with

the results recorded on the IRF tab on COIN following the intervention (be that an inspection or a

desk based review of progress against the action plan).

Note: this Delivery Guide applies to work years 2010-11 and 2011-12

6. Supporting information

6.1 The standards which should be used to achieve the above goals are:

� CA Containment Policy and supporting guidance and regulators guidance;

� PSLG final report;

� PPG 28 Pollution Prevention Guidelines: Controlled Burn.

7. Success criteria

� In England and Wales baseline action plans agreed for all sites in scope of this delivery guide.

� In Scotland baseline action plans agreed for all Buncefield in-scope tanks and Containment Policy

in scope tanks at sites prioritised for inspection using the CA ranking system.

� Progress against action plans reviewed annually.

� Improvements have been implemented by operators in accordance with agreed action plans.

8. Judging success and moving on

8.1 Information on measuring operator performance is contained in Appendix 1



9. COIN IRF scoring

9.1 The COIN Inspection Rating Form (IRF) tab on the COMAH Intervention Plan Service Order is used

to record the operators performance in the “Secondary/Tertiary Containment” line

9.2 Progress should be recorded following each intervention on the basis of the information in

Appendix 1, Table 3



Appendix 1

Assessment of operator performance

The scorecard provides a record of how well an operator complies with the standards set out in the

Containment Policy and PSLG final report. For each of the Containment Policy measures it records the

number of bunds (within the scope of the Containment Policy) on site that fully comply with that

measure. This column on the scorecard is used as the basis for assessing operator performance.

The scoring system has three main elements:

1. Calculate the current level of compliance against the Containment Policy and PSLG final report.

� The compliance score is based on the number of Containment Policy in scope bunds in the site

which are compliant with that individual measure (this is not a measure of work in progress this is

just that those bunds are fully compliant with that measure). Noting that Buncefield in scope tanks

are a subset of Containment Policy in scope tanks.

� The number of compliant bunds is divided by the total number of in scope bunds and multiplied

by 100, to give a percentage compliance figure for each of the measures.

� The percentage compliance figures for each individual measure relevant to the site are then

averaged over all relevant measures to give a percentage compliance figure for the site.

� This figure is then converted to the compliance score by reading from Table 1.

Table 1 Site Percentage Compliance

Compliance percentage (%) Compliance Score

0 - 49 5

50 - 74 4

75 - 89 3

90 - 99 2

100 1

2. Assess progress towards becoming compliant with the Containment Policy and PSLG final report

� The next operation allocates a progress score based on the site action plan and whether the plan

is being followed. This score is a direct read from Table 2.

Table 2 Action Plan Progress Score

No plan of the current non-compliance 5

Work delayed (no justification) 4

Work delayed (justified) 3

Work progressing to plan 2

All actions complete/none required 1



3. Use the compliance and progress scores to determine the operator performance rating.

� The compliance score and progress scores are added together. The total score is used in Table

3 to establish the operator performance rating for entry into COIN (IRF screen).

Table 3 Operator Performance Rating

Sum of compliance Performance Standard

and progress score Rating

2 10 Exemplary

3 or 4 20 Good

5 30 Broadly Compliant

6 40 Poor

7 or 8 50 Very Poor

9 or 10 60 Unacceptable

� The scorecard also provides the common CA description of what each performance rating broadly

reflects. These should be used as guidelines to verify the appropriate performance rating has

been derived.

� Final decisions on compliance and Enforcement need to be taken in accordance with the CA

Enforcement policy .

Description

Proactive in identifying and implementing

improvements. Good practice or above in all

respects. All success criteria fully met. No

action required.

More than minimum legal or industry

standard. Good practice in most respects.

Most success criteria met. Provision of

advice or confirmatory letter only with no

plans for follow up.

Meets minimum legal requirement of industry

standard. More effort necessary. Some

success criteria not fully met. May not

preclude close out depending on scope of

improvements required and operator attitude.

Will need confirmation (at least with a letter) of

work required. May need follow up.

Almost meets minimum legal or industry

standard. Morer effort necessary. Several

success criteria not fully met. Follow up may

be required and possible need for

enforcement action.

Somewhat below minimum legal or industry

standard. Many success criteria not met or

not fully met. A lot more effort required.

Enforcement action likely.

Well below standard. Enforcement action

required. Poor operator attitude to required

improvements.



Contacts

Environment Agency

Mike Nicholas, COMAH Technical Advisor, EA internal: 7 25 4353,Tel: 01276 454353 or

07900390093

Scottish Environment Protection Agency

Wendy Thornton

Direct dial: 0131 273 7328, Mobile: 07769 934881, Switchboard: 0131 449 7296

Appendix 2 Scorecard (example extracted from full excel spreadsheet)



Appendix 2 Scorecard

Bulk Hazardous Liquids

Documents

Transcript of Bulk Hazardous Liquids